SULLIVAN & CUNEZ

This matter concerned an application by Mr Sullivan (the father) seeking orders for the children to live with him and spend time with him, against the opposition of the mother. The mother alleged that the paternal grandfather, the father, and others had engaged in sexual misconduct against their daughter. The mother's belief in these allegations was based on statements made by the child, who had provided inconsistent accounts to police, family members, and others. The mother was the primary carer of the children.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the evidence was sufficient to establish an unacceptable risk of harm to the daughter in relation to the father, and to consider the risks posed by the paternal grandfather. The court was also required to determine the risks associated with moving the daughter to the full-time care of the father, in light of the allegations and the child's inconsistent statements.

In his reasoning, Benjamin J considered the provisions of sections 60CC(2) and (3) of the *Family Law Act 1975* (Cth), which govern the best interests of the child in parenting proceedings. The court found that the evidence presented was insufficient to establish an unacceptable risk of harm in terms of the father. The court's assessment took into account the child's inconsistent statements and the lack of corroborating evidence to substantiate the allegations of sexual misconduct against the father.

The court made orders that the children live with the father and spend time with the mother.